Total visitors right now: 92

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Police Required to Protect Christians from Advocates of Tolerance and Diversity

Monday, November 17, 2008 • 5:47 pm

Yawn. More gays who say all they want is tolerance and diversity… who want to “stop the hate”... making utter and obnoxious asses of themselves and attacking Christians.

This is video from November 14, in San Francisco’s Castro district - perhaps the gayest enclave in North America’s gayest city, right after a group of Christians held a peaceful protest on the sidewalk. Watch the video first then read one of the Christian’s descriptions of how she was treated by the gays who objected to her presence.

And I’ll say it one more time (although it certainly won’t be the last): I have yet to read a denunciation of this violence by any of our Worthy Opponents. Susan Russell? Elizabeth Kaeton? Mark Harris? Louie Crew? For that matter, Bishop Andrus? Bishop Bruno? Bishop Beisner? Bishop Mathes? Where are you? Where is your condemnation of the exact kind of violence against peaceful Christians that you condemn against gays? You prattle on about things that might happen to gays, because of what Christians say and write, yet when it actually happens to Christians, and at the hands of gays, you’re strangely silent. Well, not strangely, I guess. That would imply that I expected you to do something else, that I expected you to act consistently, with honor and without hypocrisy.

This is just the latest skirmish in the coming culture war, folks. Mark my words.

Here’s what the person wrote who posted the video:

  After just singing and worshiping God for a while, Roger decided that we should all hold hands in a circle and continue singing. So we did.

  Someone (Actually a person who came up and hugged and kissed some of us who he knew from the past) convinced some people that we were there to protest against the no on 8 campaign.

  Then some guy who was dressed up like one of the sisters (The sisters of perpetual indulgence is a group of men who dress up like nuns and call themselves the spiritual authority of the Castro.) took a curtain-type thing (Which I think they use to curse people) and wrapped it around us.

  Then a crowd started gathering. We began to sing “Amazing Grace”, and basically sang that song the whole night. (At some points we also sang “Nothing but the Blood of Jesus” and “Oh the Blood of Jesus”.) At first, they just shouted at us, using crude, rude, and foul language and calling us names like “haters” and “bigots”. Since it was a long night, I can’t even begin to remember all of the things that were shouted and/or chanted at us. Then, they started throwing hot coffee, soda and alcohol on us and spitting (and maybe even peeing) on us. Then, a group of guys surrounded us with whistles, and blasted them inches away from our ears continually. Then, they started getting violent and started shoving us. At one point a man tried to steal one of our Bibles. Chrisdene noticed, so she walked up to him and said “Hey, that’s not yours, can you please give it back?”. He responded by hitting her on the head with the Bible, shoving her to the ground, and kicking her. I called the cops, and when they got there, they pulled her out of the circle and asked her if she wanted to press charges. She said “No, tell him I forgive him.”

  Afterwards, she didn’t rejoin us in the circle, but she made friends with one of the people in the crowd, and really connected heart to heart. Roger got death threats. As the leader of our group, people looked him in the eyes and said “I am going to kill you.”, and they were serious. A cop heard one of them, and confronted him. (This part is kinda graphic, so you should skip the paragraph if you don’t want to be offended.) It wasn’t long before the violence turned to perversion. They were touching and grabbing me, and trying to shove things in my butt, and even trying to take off my pants - basically trying to molest me. I used one hand to hold my pants up, while I used the other arm to hold one of the girls. The guys huddled around all the girls, and protected them.

H/T: Michelle Malkin. More links at her site.

78 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook

What’s with all the whistles?  Some kind of oral fixation, I guess?

[1] Posted by Greg Sample on 11-17-2008 at 07:20 PM • top

Heh. I’ve read that those are actually “rape whistles.” Fitting, I’d say.

[2] Posted by Greg Griffith on 11-17-2008 at 07:24 PM • top

Excuse me, but it is dumb to protest in a place that is “home” to gays. What would be the reaction if gays protested in a church? What does one hope to accomplish other than to stir violent confrontation? Pick your battles wisely or you will be fighting too many at once.

[3] Posted by Alice Linsley on 11-17-2008 at 07:24 PM • top

So, these are the people that we are the people that are supported by Marc Andrus, JJ Bruno, Chane, Lee, Kaeton, KJS, Tom Woodward, TEc, etc…and have been telling everyone that they are being marginalized, hated, mistreated, and a host of other things? Yet all I heard from them is hate filled words, possessive talk about a certain area belonging only to them (I thought we lived in a free society??? Guess not!), and threats! So, who is being hated, marginalized, terrorized, threatened, etc….It does not look like the Gays it looks like the Christians and the heterosexuals are being hated, harassed, terrorized, threatened, etc…!

[4] Posted by TLDillon on 11-17-2008 at 07:27 PM • top

Incorrect, Alice. There is something called the First Amendment, and these protesters were peacefully assembled. Should blacks in the sixties not have protested at lunch counters?

[5] Posted by Greg Griffith on 11-17-2008 at 07:30 PM • top

Don’t you just feel the love

[6] Posted by Another Pilgrim on 11-17-2008 at 07:31 PM • top

Yes I heard gutter language and lots of whistles but I didn’t see any violence. The gay community was reacting to what they viewed as an invasion of their turf.
The question I would pose is whether a gay protest in an overwhelmingly straight community would draw the same reaction and whether the police would be nearly as restrained.
It seems that there are double standards in place.

[7] Posted by Anvil on 11-17-2008 at 07:36 PM • top

Your comparison of the Civil Rights Movement and this protest does not serve well.

[8] Posted by Alice Linsley on 11-17-2008 at 07:41 PM • top

Uhm! Anvil…..Is there a title in place that says that district belongs only to the gays? ....People are allowed to protest or walk anywhere they want to so long as they are doing it within the First Amendment law peacefully! By the way I have seen the gays protesting all over the place in public areas such as City Halls and in fact right out in front of Churches and I do not see Christians following them home threatening them nor acting out like this! Get real! They do not own certain areas where they may flock or live! This is still America where sidewalks everywhere still belong to the general public and districts and common areas are not bought and sold to one group of people!

[9] Posted by TLDillon on 11-17-2008 at 07:41 PM • top

[3] Posted by Alice Linsley on 11-17-2008 at 07:24 PM

Your question answered here:

[10] Posted by leonL on 11-17-2008 at 07:47 PM • top

You’re right, #7.  There is a double standard.  And that double standard is precisely Greg’s point.  Had a gay protest taken place in a straight community and had the gays been treated in exactly the same way as these Christians were treated in San Francisco, it would have been all over the news.  Bishops like Andrus, Bruno and old Third-Time’s-The-Charm would have sermonized about “hate” for two months straight while Miss Kaeton’s and Miss Russell’s sites would have full of condemnation of the “tone” of sites like this one and pointed to that protest as proof of the “hate” they proclaiim.  That none of these people has seen fit to condemn this incident and countless others like it speaks volumes about the Episcopal religion.

[11] Posted by Christopher Johnson on 11-17-2008 at 07:47 PM • top


Thanks for posting this.  More people, we, need to witness it.

We need to witness the self-centeredness.  We need to witness the violence: “I am going to kill you.”.  We need to witness the hatred: calling us names like “haters” and “bigots”.  We need to witness the terrorism: they started getting violent and started shoving us.  We need to witness the sin: trying to take off my pants - basically trying to molest me. We need to witness the seeds of Sodom and Gomorrah here and now: the violence turned to perversion.

And we need to witness to The Gospel, the saving Grace of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and the only way to redemption of our sins and the only way to God:  She said “No, tell him I forgive him.”

God bless.

[12] Posted by Ol' Bob on 11-17-2008 at 08:05 PM • top

[9] ODC
My point exactly. There is a double standard.
However, as distasteful as it was, this was no a violent confrontation.
First Amendment Rights aside, who’s brainstorm was it to have a Christian protest in the Castro of all places? By the grace of God no one was hurt.

[13] Posted by Anvil on 11-17-2008 at 08:56 PM • top


That’s completely ridiculous - we do live a free country and IF homosexuals were actually secure in their choice, people singing “We are the Hetrosexual World” everywhere wouldn’t bother them a bit. 

However, they KNOW what they are doing is fundamentally wrong - and nothing more dangerous than a person who is willingly doing wrong being shown they are doing so.

ONLY FASCISTS and BIGOTS harass people, spit on people and generally treat them with disrespect.  They have shown who they truly are by their OWN actions.

That is simple, clarifying and startling reality.

[14] Posted by Eclipse on 11-17-2008 at 09:17 PM • top

Pick fights wisely or prepare to be always in combat.  How are we to show the Kingdom of Peace?
Read this:

[15] Posted by Alice Linsley on 11-17-2008 at 09:20 PM • top

I’m on Bp Bruno’s mailing list (somehow he neglected take me off aftr he yanked my License to Officiate) and he encourages such activity, couched in very careful language, just as he encourage his clergy to bless homosexual unions, while trying to cover his rear by saying, “I won’t do it, but I won’t tell anyone else not to.” But he did marry the diocesan darling, Malcom Boyd to his partner in his private chapel.

[16] Posted by desertpadre on 11-17-2008 at 09:27 PM • top

[14] Eclipse
What is completely ridiculous?
Calling people Fascists and Bigots does not advance the cross. They will know we are Christians by our love.

[17] Posted by Anvil on 11-17-2008 at 09:28 PM • top

Actually, this Christian group has been doing this for a while on a regular basis, so they were not in the area for the first time. Apparently, previously, they were basically ignored as they prayed and urged homosexuals to turn away from their lifestyle. This confrontation is in reaction to the voters voting yes on Prop 8 and maintaining marriage between a man and a woman. So all of a sudden, this Christian group becomes a target. Should they have changed their location after Prop 8 passed? Could they have anticipated the reaction? I don’t know - they have been doing this without any problems before.

[18] Posted by Branford on 11-17-2008 at 09:35 PM • top

#7 Anvil,
Puh-lease. Cities around the country are taken over by “Pride” events every year, in which all sorts of obscenities are on parade, the cops keep peace, and city employees are even expected to march in “solidarity.” Behavior that would get other people arrested are tolerated and cheered at “Pride” events.

YET, a group of Christians can’t gather in prayer in public without being verbally and physically assaulted?

[19] Posted by teatime on 11-17-2008 at 09:37 PM • top

Alice Linsley (#3),

You said:  Excuse me, but it is dumb to protest in a place that is “home” to gays.

That is a very interesting observation.

The Great Commission commands us to go into all the world and preach the Gospel.

Is San Francisco’s Castro district not part of the world?

That is what evangelism is about, isn’t it?

Are you saying that the Great Commission doesn’t apply where sin and debauchery abound?  As in Castro District?

God bless.

[20] Posted by Ol' Bob on 11-17-2008 at 10:25 PM • top

If this had been a group of heterosexuals harrasing a group of homosexuals by blowing whistles incessantly, shouting obscenities, physically crowding and intimidating them, the police who were present would have arrested said heterosexuals for “hate crimes”.  Why weren’t any of these homosexual activists arrested?  I really don’t understand.

[21] Posted by Florida Anglican [Support Israel] on 11-17-2008 at 10:26 PM • top

[19] teatime
And where do you find me defending the gay community’s response?
If you are prepared to attack a fellow Christian for fair comment on a Christian website, I shudder to think about your evangelism to gays.

[22] Posted by Anvil on 11-17-2008 at 10:41 PM • top

“But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,  heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God…” 2 Tim. 3:1-4

“Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you.” 1 John 3:13

[23] Posted by GSP98 on 11-17-2008 at 10:52 PM • top

Blowing a whistle in someone’s ear is assault.  Attempting to remove their clothing and throwing liquids on people is assault.  It is a crime in this country.  That the SA police chose not to uphold the laws tells a story.  We have fought a long battle for woman’s rights to not have such abuse be accepted ... and the gay movement is undermining this very basic right and demonstrating their lawlessness and perversion.  So what if it was ill advised to make a Christian witness in that place?  Granted, go crawling in a sewer and you are likely to get dirty.  Still, basic human protection should still apply.  What this tells us is that this area is under gang rule.

[24] Posted by monologistos on 11-17-2008 at 11:01 PM • top

With the tacit if not explicit approval of the police, monologistos.  Where is the district attorney or US attorney?

[25] Posted by Seen-Too-Much on 11-17-2008 at 11:34 PM • top

This wasn’t a protest.  This group regularly gathers on Fridays at that spot to witness to gays.  This Friday evening there was an organized premeditated attack on them, including sexual assault on the female members.

Remember Genesis 19.  We’re there again.

[26] Posted by Jim the Puritan on 11-17-2008 at 11:57 PM • top

#26 Exactly what I was thinking.  But remember their only real sin is a lack of hospitality.

[27] Posted by yoderdame on 11-18-2008 at 08:27 AM • top

Anvil -

What monologistos said quite well.  That is fascist and bigoted behavior.

I tell my kids when they do something wrong - might even tell them they are being ‘mean’ when they are unkind to one another.

So, in your book that means I’m not being loving… sorry, that’s ridiculous.

[28] Posted by Eclipse on 11-18-2008 at 08:29 AM • top

Alice Linsley and Anvil: The protests against the successful defense of marriage around the country this past Saturday were not held in “gay enclaves”; they were specifically intended to reach the general (read “hetero”) population.  The website directed protesters in my neighborhood to assemble at the entry point to Colonial Williamsburg in order to “catch the passing tourist traffic”.  Colonial Williamsburg is one of the most highly-trafficked tourist destinations for families.  Do you support the plan of those individuals the right of peaceful assembly on this “turf”?  Of course you do.  So do I, though I avoided it.  Oh, and I forgot the best part—no actual individuals were screamed at, assaulted or molested during the protest!!  Wow!

[29] Posted by Fidela on 11-18-2008 at 08:55 AM • top

Alice Linsley is correct and the rest of you are wrong.  The fact that the mob of gays were in the wrong does not render the fundmentalist street preachers innocent “martyrs.”  The street preachers’ tactics do not constitute authentic Christian evangelism in the slightest.  Their activities are more like the Orange Order’s marches through Catholic neighborhoods in Dumcree and elsewhere in Northern Island.  Or obnoxious Kensit “Protestant Truth Society” protests against “Romanism,” who provoked violent reactions, including murder, from working class Catholics and/or Anglo-Catholics.  Make no mistake:  these “preachers” were trying to provoke a reaction and they got what they wanted.

[30] Posted by Violent Papist on 11-18-2008 at 09:01 AM • top

“Island” obviously should be “Ireland.”  Too much “righteous” indignation from me first thing in the morning.

[31] Posted by Violent Papist on 11-18-2008 at 09:03 AM • top

[28] Eclipse
I very much doubt that you call your children Fascists and Bigots.
And by the way, how is it that Alice and I have become the whipping posts for the gay agenda? Is it your intention on this list to bludgeon all opposition?
My comments were directed to the video, which I watched carefully. If you will check my posts I have said there is a double standard in place. It is not, nor ever shall be my intention to advocate for the gay agenda.
Find another straw man to bark at.

[32] Posted by Anvil on 11-18-2008 at 09:18 AM • top


Your attack on the Orange Order was entirely inappropriate to the matters discussed.  It was an unprovoked introduction of sectarian bigotry and only betrays your own prejudice.

[33] Posted by Traditioner on 11-18-2008 at 09:26 AM • top

I don’t think going to this neighborhood immediately after Prop 8 passed was a good idea.  Even if they had gone there before, there was bound to be trouble.  In hindsight, a bad mistake.

That said, the evangelists were on a public street, paid for by their taxes.  They have a legal right to peaceful gatherings. Are “gay” districts going to become like those Muslim enclaves in Europe where no one, even the police, now dares to go?

[34] Posted by st. anonymous on 11-18-2008 at 09:42 AM • top

Good of you to identify your indignation as “righteous”.  I might have missed that otherwise.

[35] Posted by Fidela on 11-18-2008 at 09:42 AM • top

Anvil (7), what most impressed me about this video clip was the restraint of the police, which I find admirable. I think the most difficult thing for a policeman in this situation is the interface with the larger, more forceful/beligerent part of the crowd, which appears to be the gay protesters here? Please correct me if I’m wrong about that - I could well be. But I thought the police were almost gentle - and did a nice job of *not* making a difficult situation worse.

Alice, I find myself in sympathy with your remarks. But - it is the norm that demonstrators go into places where they are not welcome - this is what we’ve seen from student demonstrations in the 1960s forward and the test of a free society is in its ability to accept with as much grace as it can muster such expressions of free speech, from whomever. The counter demonstration was meant to intimidate, unquestionably .... but gosh, we’ve all seen worse, surely? Well, depending on our relative ages, I guess.

Haven’t neo-Nazis demonstrated in Jewish neighborhoods? Black neighborhoods? Our society has at times, at least, allowed such things and that is for groups who boast of their hatred (for Jews and blacks). The usual response is a counter-demonstration.

Christians singing and praying on a street corner will annoy a non-Christian, will certainly offend anyone who believes that they are “having their rights taken away” by Christians. But I think most people ought to be able to deal with that - how long does it take to walk around? Or was there aggression from the Christians in this clip that I missed? The Christian group surely did not expect to be warmly received in present circumstances in that neighborhood.

Again, what strikes me most here is that the police did a good job of keeping between and keeping the situation from igniting into something worse.

[36] Posted by oscewicee on 11-18-2008 at 09:58 AM • top

Couple of verses come to mind here, just generally speaking.  I don’t know if the folks there were quietly handing out tracts and serving tea or waving signs and blowing air horns, but we’re told to Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. (Col. 4:5), And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour. 

Is that our attitude, our heart of hearts, our “game plan?”  Even if gay bar crowd were the only kind of sinner in this world, the call is still, in the compassion that Jesus had for the multitude “for they were like sheep without a shepherd,” to get beside them, and reach their hearts with the love of God.  Jude, arguably the most “condemning” Book in Holy Scripture, reminds us,

But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.  And of some have compassion, making a difference: and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

[37] Posted by Robert Easter on 11-18-2008 at 10:01 AM • top

You are correct that the free speech rights of the demonstrators were violated.  I would not be unhappy if members of the gay mob were identified and prosecuted under California and Federal civil rights statutes, as well as the narcotics possession laws that they are probably violating as well, thereby flushing them out of society for a season.  There is, however, a distinction between exercising a legal right and owning the moral high ground.  Street preachers almost NEVER have the high moral ground - they are agent provocateurs and can be fairly characterized as anti-apostolic. 

You also cited neo-Nazi marches through Jewish and black neighborhoods.  The neo-Nazi march through black Cincinnati a couple of years back caused a bit more than a boisterous counter-demonstration - it touched off damaging riots. 

As Kissinger supposedly said about the Iran and Iraq war, its a pity they both can’t lose.

[38] Posted by Violent Papist on 11-18-2008 at 10:13 AM • top

VP:  Thank you for your maturity in ignoring my shot across your bow.  It was unnecessary and I apologize.

[39] Posted by Fidela on 11-18-2008 at 10:19 AM • top

Violent Papist, I only wanted to point out that this clip isn’t that different or unexpected for the circumstances - it’s something we’ve seen before. And the riots in Cincinnati were in my mind - this situation in the Castro, handled differently, could also have been explosive.

That said, street preachers (and they come in all stripes including non-Christians) may do what they do because they honestly feel it is what they are meant to do, or they may have other motives. Those of us who are not sympathetic to them find them a nuisance or worse and their motives can be as questionable as anyone else’s. But in a free society - they have the right to be street preachers,  just as you and I have the right to ignore them, to refuse to listen to them, to decline to take their tracts and to go on about our business - or to argue with them, hand out tracts of our own and try to make them listen to us. It’s part of living in a free society and we need not be too thin-skinned about it. I don’t like the confrontations — that the neo-Nazis were allowed to march in Jewish neighborhoods is profoundly offensive to me. But I understand the reason why we allow free speech - and I value that right highly. You and I don’t get to say who gets free speech. And those people over there don’t get to tell us we can’t have it.

[40] Posted by oscewicee on 11-18-2008 at 10:34 AM • top

There are questions of judgment here and questions of law.  If the street preachers have not violated the law and it appears tentatively that they did not, then what remains is a matter of judgment.  I can’t say I take to the “in your face” personality of most street preachers ... it’s not much better judgment than the abusive gay counter-demonstration discussed here. But they appear to obey the law, the gay counter-demonstrators clearly engage in breaking the law in at least some of their activities.  This distinction really isn’t that difficult.The example of the parades in Ireland certainly point to the difficulties of free speech and protest speech and the lack of charity (if not hooliganism) that often accompanies legal exercise of rights.  As far as I can see, “Orangemen” are simply hooligans in the same category as the KKK.

[41] Posted by monologistos on 11-18-2008 at 11:07 AM • top

I found this comment by someone on Rod Dreher’s thread alleging that the street preachers account of what took place was exaggerated.  I suspect he may be right. My comments interspersed through.

Yeah, that’s why, essentially, I don’t believe the events described here at all. It looks like a protest and a counterprotest, and the counterprotesters lost their cool and started shouting, and that’s about it.

Maybe someone was kicked by a single individual, maybe someone tried to ‘steal a bible’, although that allegation makes little sense.  {VP: Plausible to me, drunken mob people do silly things.}

Meanwhile, the text also asserts that the very same person who was first attacked went into the crowd and wandered around there for a while, and, as pointed out, the cameraman did also. That does not sound very…uh…reasonable to do in a violent mob.  {VP: Sounds pretty unlikely to me too.}

Also, the cops apparently were there when ‘Roger’ got a death threat, (And earlier for the ‘stolen bible’, or maybe that was later and the story is out of order.) and yet weren’t there for what that apparently caused, mass perversion, having to show up later to stop that. Maybe it was just a few cops, so they decided to ignore felony sexual assault taking place a few feet from them until their backup got there, and decided not to actually arrest people for that for some strange reason.  {VP: Exactly.  Even today, San Francisco cops these days wouldn’t blythly assume that gay sexual assaulters are merely collecting for the Red Cross.  The evangelists are not credible.}

Yeah, the ‘account’ of what happened is clearly somewhat fictional, and that raises the question of how much of it is true, and why nothing was captured on tape. Normally when things are failed to be captured on tape, it’s because of the police, but the police seem to have no problem with filming here.

What we can see from the tape is bad enough, but I strongly suspect that the “evangelists” are lying about what actually happened, as well.

[42] Posted by Violent Papist on 11-18-2008 at 11:19 AM • top

What we can see from the tape is bad enough, but I strongly suspect that the “evangelists” are lying about what actually happened, as well.

Well, put through the filter of the “fog of war” and the fact that little actions like this sometimes have things happen before the police arrive, ancillary incidents on the side streets or after the police leave, I think it’s plausible.  Plus, we only have a little video to evaluate.

The gay protesters are not entirely evil, and the evangelists are not perfect angels.  Common sense tells us this.

[43] Posted by Paul B on 11-18-2008 at 11:46 AM • top

As long as we are going to strongly suspect everyone present of lying, we really don’t have a story one way or the other.  Based on both the reporting and a likely scenario, the evangelists were more obnoxious than they let on while the counter-protesters frightened and molested them ... somewhat.  Again, I would seriously question the judgment of street evangelists showing up at gay pride events ... just as I question the judgment of holding gay pride parades. Sometimes, it’s a short step to resembling all too closely the Fred Phelps gang where what is preached is blatantly that God hates the other group.  Usually, it does not show anyone off at their best.  But then it’s hard for me to escape the old notion of things being done “decently and in good order”.  smile I’ve seen car crashes caused by protesters where the inattentive driver yelled in fury at the protesters because they were there for him to look at when he backended the car in front.  The right of free speech should not quickly be put aside because it in some way inconveniences us.  Our responsibility as citizens and especially, as drivers, is to remain attentive to our own course and not blame our getting off track on others.

[44] Posted by monologistos on 11-18-2008 at 11:51 AM • top

monologistos (44), well said all around,a nd especially that last sentence. Thanks.

[45] Posted by oscewicee on 11-18-2008 at 11:57 AM • top

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to learn that at least some of the LBGT protesters in the Castro Street mob were professional “rent-a-mobs.”

[46] Posted by Cennydd on 11-18-2008 at 12:05 PM • top


Your characterization of the Orange Order is typical of an ignorance encountered in extremist communities.  I sincerely doubt you intended to offend but it is akin to comparing the Knights of Columbus to Franco’s Falange.

[47] Posted by Traditioner on 11-18-2008 at 12:15 PM • top

[36] Posted by oscewicee
I too was impressed with the restraint of the police. It wouldn’t surprise me (based on the unheard video conversations) that the police unit knew many of the protesters. With the number of protests in SF, the riot squad would likely have developed familiarity with the activists.

[48] Posted by Anvil on 11-18-2008 at 12:59 PM • top

#36 and 48—Having lived in Berkeley for several years, I know a major part of the police training in Berkeley, and I would assume S.F. as well, is how to deal with these types of situations—crowd control, protests, people going crazy.  You have to maintain control “politely” while not letting the situation escalate.  I think that became a priority after the People’s Park riots.

As much as I disliked living in Berkeley, I had a lot of admiration for its police force.  They did an excellent job in often very difficult situations while getting a lot of verbal abuse.  Even though they may have had long hair in a ponytail, or a big beard (at least some of them did back in the Seventies when I was there), they were top notch.

[49] Posted by Jim the Puritan on 11-18-2008 at 01:11 PM • top

This community seems to recognize MOB RULE, they may call themselves activists but they are clearly a MOB. How can anyone, gay or straight want to live in such a community.

[50] Posted by Betty See on 11-18-2008 at 02:33 PM • top

Now in England, Christians would not have been allowed to evangelize and witness.  In fact a few months ago, a Christian was arrested, not for preaching, but for simply handing out tracts.  Homosexuals have no problem demonstrating in public areas when they choose, regardless of how offensive their displays .... gay pride parades.  Do you think there are no children around or that the homosexuals cared?.  This is the lifestyle that is going to be taught in California public schools?????????

[51] Posted by Bill C on 11-18-2008 at 06:22 PM • top

Anvil -

Yes, the behavior of these people is greatly to be admired - treating people with disrespect, screaming, yelling and just acting like delinquent teens.  This is a great testament to why a free society should allow them free reign to oppress others and use mob behavior to promote their beliefs.

If either of my kids acted like that I WOULD tell them they were being Fascists and Bigots - then they would be put into their rooms - then I would have them write apologies - then I would never allow them out of the house until they could prove that they could treat people with respect.

No one would want even their dog to act like that.

Sorry, regardless if I think I want to spend my time singing Kumbaya on the street corner by Atheist Avenue - ALL PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY have a right to express their opinions (even these gay folk) without being harassed.

That is a fact of being American and being in a free country.  That is the simple fact of the matter.

SO, Anvil - would it be OK, then, for Christians to do these things to gay people if they come and protest a service? 

Must be - according to such logic.

[52] Posted by Eclipse on 11-18-2008 at 07:17 PM • top

I must be having a problem with my English. Where again are you adducing a favourable response from me to the freak show in the Castro?
I can’t be any more clear than my last posts. So address your parenting skills to someone else.

[53] Posted by Anvil on 11-18-2008 at 08:35 PM • top

Not that I expect any direct response from this post-  That hasn’t been my strong suit lately, but C.S. Lewis mentioned a bit in his That Hideous Strength that suggests the enemy’s cased ace is the ability to inflame the “right wing” and the “left wing” against each other over “issues” and “principles” so that he can walk right in and take things over.  Dogs will bark, and theologians will argue, but how do we apply His call to love even our enemies, and to make disciples of all people groups to this situation?

[54] Posted by Robert Easter on 11-18-2008 at 08:59 PM • top

Robert, maybe by interacting one on one with people? By talking to them instead of preaching at them? Sharing with them? I am not good at discipling, so I expect you are going to get much better, more helpful answers from others, and I look forward to them. But I think we have to start from love, always.

[55] Posted by oscewicee on 11-18-2008 at 09:05 PM • top

Thanks for that, oscewicee.  No intention to be preaching at folks, and apologies to anybody (everybody?) that got that impression!

[56] Posted by Robert Easter on 11-18-2008 at 09:14 PM • top


My point exactly. There is a double standard.
However, as distasteful as it was, this was no a violent confrontation.
First Amendment Rights aside, who’s brainstorm was it to have a Christian protest in the Castro of all places?

[57] Posted by Eclipse on 11-18-2008 at 10:40 PM • top

There is a video of one of the girls telling her story at Perpetua of Carthage. The girl says:

1) That they were not confronting people but standing in a circle singing hymns. They were not witnessing or preaching.

2) That they had done this before and nothing bad had happened. They did not know this was going to happen.

3) They had hot coffee poured in their faces, one of the girls was shoved to the ground and kicked, one had her pants pulled down and objects shoved into her rear end, they were repeated told “We’re going to kill you.”

Note that they were on a public sidewalk, not invading private property. She says the men came out of the bars to harass them.

[58] Posted by perpetuaofcarthage on 11-18-2008 at 10:58 PM • top

#58:  Too bad, unlike Genesis, they did not have the two angels of the Lord present to protect them.

[59] Posted by Jim the Puritan on 11-18-2008 at 11:06 PM • top

Traditioner, I’m not a member of either extreme community of the conflict between Catholics in Northern Ireland or Orangemen. I simply don’t see any practical value in an organization whose reason to exist is to thumb their noses at the next neighborhood in the name of some long dead scoundrel named King Billy. And the Knights of Columbus are far worse that either of these ... virtual demons!  The only people who scare me more are Shriners.  I recognize that for street brawlers and football (soccer) fans, these parades are of paramount importance transcending even the Incarnation but for me ... not so much.  Here’s to hoping we don’t import that particular insanity into the USA.  We are sufficiently insane already.

[60] Posted by monologistos on 11-18-2008 at 11:29 PM • top

Did anyone else get flashbacks to the civil rights era where peaceful protestors and school kids needed to be protected by the authorities while the mobs frothed at the mouth all around?

In those images, the people being hounded did nothing hateful or violent to bring such attacks on themselves. They remained calm and dignified and they stuck to their principles and their manners.

And no, Alice, an American has the right to speak their minds and express themselves peaceably out in public no matter what neighborhood. NO public place should be off limits to peaceful protests in this country.

And yes, I believe that means that if protestors wanted to protest in a church then they could, just like blacks used to stage sit ins in private businesses in the South.  Its a principle that should be applied equally or not at all. The only thing is that in order to be legitimate protests after the King model, protestors couldn’t act like any of the gay activists have been acting lately.

But if they wanted to come and have a sit-in in my church, they would find a very different reaction from the racist southern business owners. They would be tolerated, treated civilly, prayed for and loved. But mostly we would just go about our business. I think fair is fair as long as protest doesn’t get ugly and uncivilized.

Personally, I hope that once this group of kids get their nerves back, they should apply for a city permit for a formal protest in the Castro to protect their rights to free speech anywhere in public that they please. They will be protected by the police from the get go in that case. In fact, if other California Christians could join them that would be even better.

[61] Posted by StayinAnglican on 11-19-2008 at 12:30 AM • top

I hope these Christians realize that their efforts to bring the Word of God to those in need may be more successful than they think.  They have demonstrated the courage to follow Jesus and ESCAPE from this oppressive community and others who desire to do the same may take notice.

[62] Posted by Betty See on 11-19-2008 at 03:45 AM • top

This gay mob seems to consider the community “THEIR” community and they are determined to keep those uppity Christians “in their place“.

[63] Posted by Betty See on 11-19-2008 at 04:14 AM • top


Is a church a public place in the same league as a street corner?  To my knowledge, not legally, and though I agree with the spirit of your argument I disagree that anyone should have the right to come into my place of worship to protest.  Let them stand outside on the street corner near my church, yes.  Let them come inside with an agenda to draw attention away from the Living God, no.

[64] Posted by Fidela on 11-19-2008 at 11:34 AM • top

Not trying to draw any conclusions from it, but this discussion reminds me of a conversation with a Christian leader from the PRC the other day.  I asked him, in view of the great spread of the Gospel and hunger for Truth in China how long he thought it would be before the government there stopped its persecutions against the Church.  He answered, “Persecution- yes, persecution is a good thing!”  Another observation-  2 Tim. 3:12 seems to say that everyone who has a mind to “live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.”  What does that say to us? 

Not preaching at nobody, and not sure about my own responses in such a situation, but thought it might be worth a shot to see what folks might have to say about either point….

[65] Posted by Robert Easter on 11-19-2008 at 01:56 PM • top

On persecution being a good thing:Seems consistent with the urgings of Tertullian that his flock seek out martyrdom.  Let’s bring it home.  Do you think it is a good thing to encourage your own children to seek to be mocked and scourged, yes, also chained and imprisoned, stoned, sawn in two, tempted, and put to death with the sword?  Seems an odd way to treat the treasures of the Church.

[66] Posted by monologistos on 11-19-2008 at 02:45 PM • top

If you think Tertullian is encouraging some kind of extreme masochism, I’m sure there’s a more workable reading.  I think the question might better be framed, “Do I want my children to grow up in a world of self-indulgence and entitlement, or do I want them to love Jesus enough that He, and not their favorite toy, is their greatest goal and pleasure?”  If it’s a choice between the cup of devils and the cup of Christ, Lord help us all choose the latter!

[67] Posted by Robert Easter on 11-19-2008 at 03:03 PM • top

Another observation- 2 Tim. 3:12 seems to say that everyone who has a mind to “live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.”

Words to make us strong, prepare us. I have been reading a little book of words from Mother Theresa - they are enheartening words about joy and love and kindness, about giving. She was often in the heart of the worst the world has to offer. I think most Christians honor her for the service to which she dedicated her life. But she certainly had her critics in India - from people who accused her of putting her faith before her social work, etc. I think if we truly are living our faith, we are likely to meet with ugliness from people who find themselves challenged by it.

I count myself fortunate to be living in an area where the majority of the people are at least nominally Christian and there is respect for Christians. But then, I wonder if I’m in too comfortable a place?

I don’t think we’re necessarily expected to embrace suffering and persecution - but I think we’re meant to be prepared for the real possibility of it.

[68] Posted by oscewicee on 11-19-2008 at 04:29 PM • top

Here’s a good example from Kensignton Maryland of how to treat demonstrators who come to protest outside one’s church:

Beyer said churchgoers that came out to interact with the protestors were “friendly,” offering water and umbrellas to picketers who ultimately went home after about two hours due to rain.

“This is not about individual people,” Beyer said, complimenting the hospitality of the church members and saying there was no hostility toward them. “This is not about people, this is about policies.”

From here.

[69] Posted by perpetuaofcarthage on 11-19-2008 at 05:31 PM • top

Do you think that maybe living in a “nominally Christian” society can be a temptation to confuse that “will” to “live godly in Christ Jesus” with the everyday notion to simply get along with our neighbors?  If so, then could our “good deeds” actually become a snare, if only in seeing them as evidence of a living faith when, in fact, they count more as our “dues” for citizenship in this world?  Stuff I wonder about sometimes- just kinda stirring the pot a bit…  wink

[70] Posted by Robert Easter on 11-19-2008 at 05:41 PM • top

Monologistos, I think I was in your town this past summer!  What neighborhood are ya in?  (I was mainly in Ballyhackamore, or in the Linen Hall district.)

[71] Posted by Robert Easter on 11-19-2008 at 05:45 PM • top

Do you think that maybe living in a “nominally Christian” society can be a temptation to confuse that “will” to “live godly in Christ Jesus” with the everyday notion to simply get along with our neighbors?

Yes. What do you think?

[72] Posted by oscewicee on 11-19-2008 at 05:50 PM • top

Oscewicee, I wonder if we are, on one hand. so innoculated against the rest of the Gospel by repeated injections of a weakened version, and so accustomed to the idea that these weakened bits are all there is, that we’ve about gotten to the point of thinking that salvation is all about our opinions, period.  Having lived so long in that kind of culture I am still learning to think and act in a way that fits with the idea that my whole being is involved in this thing that God calls “salvation,” and really enter in to a life that receives and reflects His love without respect for my thought habits and expectations.  I’ve got a looooong way to go!  hmmm

[73] Posted by Robert Easter on 11-19-2008 at 06:11 PM • top

Gee, what about them Leafs, eh?

[74] Posted by Robert Easter on 11-19-2008 at 09:10 PM • top

Sorry, Robert, I’ve never been to East Belfast.

[75] Posted by monologistos on 11-20-2008 at 03:10 PM • top

Or Central (Linen Hall) or even Ireland.

[76] Posted by monologistos on 11-20-2008 at 03:13 PM • top

My mistake,then, I must have mis-surmised!  wink  You sounded familiar enough with the Orangemen, parades, & such like that was your own town!  Lovely place,anyway!

[77] Posted by Robert Easter on 11-20-2008 at 03:23 PM • top

It is not love to let people get away with assault and bad behavior.  If someone is driving down the one way freeway going the wrong direction at top speed you aren’t being loving by telling them that its OK.  The loving thing to do is make them stop, tell them what they are doing is wrong, and show them the right direction to go.  And if anyone assaults me on any street in any city in the USA because they disagree with my opinion…I demand that charges be filed against them.  And I carry my bear spray (that I bought at the national parks to protect myself from grizzly bears)so I can stop the attack and teach them that crime doesn’t pay.  Teaching someone that they can assault someone just because they don’t like their opinion is not love…its stupidity.  Teaching them to respect the rights of others is love.  God disciplines us when we are in the wrong…and we discipline our children when they do wrong…and the laws/police of our nation should do the same regarding criminal conduct.  Personally I don’t think that “promoting religion” in public demonstrations ever helps anybody…its just annoying.  But no one has the right to assault someone on a public street just because their actions are annoying.  However, if you truly want to “minister” to people…thats the wrong way to do it.  Try doing what I do when I am in San Francisco…I feed the homeless.

[78] Posted by take action on 11-21-2008 at 03:38 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.